Commercial TV have virtually vacated the field of News and Current Affairs, so I am puzzled by the level of trust placed in them. I rarely watch ‘news’ and ‘current affairs’ on commercial TV. The little I see of commercial news seems to be mainly disasters (where pictures are available), road accidents (ditto), ‘human interest’, celebrity trivia, advertorials and cross-promotion. It is so vacuous that it’s hard to ascribe any political position or bias to it. As for commercial ‘current affairs’, nothing but sensationalist tripe aimed at pushing viewers’ hot buttons with a view to delivering them to advertisers. Plus more cross-promotion, of course.

I’m having trouble understanding how that “total trust” works for “daily newspapers”?
If it’s 48% overall, yet the “Tele-fibbies” is lowest individual paper on that mark of 48, all others are above that?

Unless the lower table is made up from those that actually spend their hard-earned (time &/or money) buying/reading them. One in 3-5 “read” them without believing what they’re reading? That only one in ten, that read it, believe most of the stuff the Wizards of Oz bake in their filling, between front and last pages?
And the upper table is made up of the opinions of “spectators” as well?

It seems odd to restrict the analysis to people who “have read” the publication in question. Makes sense, kinda sorta, for city-specific newspapers, but if people don’t read the Oz, for example, they presumably don’t put a lot of trust in it. And it would be silly to trust the Age, but not the SMH or Brisbane Times, given the overlap in content